Lewis v. . McNatt
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of trespass, vi et armis, commenced in the year 1860, and tried before his Honor, Judge Russell, at the Spring Term, 1870, of the Superior Court of Bladen County, upon the issue joined on the plea of not guilty.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass, vi et armis, commenced in the year 1860, and tried before his Honor, Judge Russell, at the Spring Term, 1870, of the Superior Court of Bladen County, upon the issue joined on the plea of not guilty. The plaintiff declared for the loss of certain turpentine, .some in barrels and some on the trees, and for an injury to his slaves, caused by the defendant in going upon a tract of land which the plaintiff held under a lease, and driving off his slaves and seizing the turpentine. The testimony disclosed the fact that the plaintiff was engaged in making turpentine…
1Opinion of the CourtDick, J.
Crude turpentine which has formed on the-body of the tree, and is usually known as “ scrape,” is personal property, and belongs to the person who has lawfully produced it by cultivation. State v. Moore, 11 Ire. 70. It is an annual product of labor and industry, and although it adheres to the body of the tree it is not a part of the realty. The turpentine crop may be properly classed with fnidusindustriales, for it is not the spontaneous product of the trees, but requires annual labor and cultivation. Upon a-similar principle, hops which spring from old roots have long-been regarded as…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Powers v. HarlowMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Richbourg v. RoseSupreme Court of Florida · 1907
- Lanier v. . Pullman Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- Silver Valley Mining Co. v. Baltimore Gold & Silver Mining & Smelting Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- State v. . GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.